PROJECT REPORT

ON

Evaluation of the performance of

Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) at
Elysium Flushing Meadows

Project Report Submitted to:

Elysium Properties India (P) Ltd - Flushing Meadows,
699, Avinashi Road, Coimbatore – 641 037,
Tamilnadu, India.

This is to certify that pages 1 to 36 (cover to end) of the

report is prepared based on the findings of the sample
analysis and measurements carried out at Elysium
Prepared by
Flushing Meadows.
Dr. S. Mathava Kumar
Associate Professor,
10/Dec/2021
Environmental & Water Resources Engg.
Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Madras
Chennai - 600036, India
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Location ................................................................................................................................ 2

1.2 Study area ............................................................................................................................ 2

1.3 Standards for treated STP effluent for discharge / Land application ............................ 3

SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT .............................................................................................. 6

2.1 Sewage treatment plant....................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Sample collection ................................................................................................................. 8

2.3 Characterization of wastewater ....................................................................................... 10

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................................. 11

3.1 Wastewater characteristics ............................................................................................... 12

3.2 Physical parameters .......................................................................................................... 13

3.3. Chemical Parameters ....................................................................................................... 15

NOISE MONITORING .............................................................................................................. 18

4.1 Instrument used for noise monitoring ............................................................................. 19

4.2 Methodology adopted for noise monitoring .................................................................... 19

MAJOR OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................. 22

5.1 Major Observations .......................................................................................................... 23

5.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 23

5.3 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 24

ANNEXURES .............................................................................................................................. 25

Annexure I................................................................................................................................ 26

Annexure II .............................................................................................................................. 28

Annexure III ............................................................................................................................ 30

Annexure IV ............................................................................................................................. 31

i
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Location map of Elysium Flushing Meadows Clubhouse 2

Figure 2. View of the STP interior in EFM. 3

Figure 3. Proposed treatment scheme of the STP at EFM. 7

Figure 4. Diagram of the showing the sampling points in the STP of EFM 9

Figure 5. Photographs showing (a) Sample collection (b) Settleable solids in aeration tank and

(c) Samples collected from STP. 9

Figure 6. Variation of pH and EC in the collected samples 13

Figure 7. Variation of Turbidity and Total suspended solids in the collected samples 14

Figure 8. Solids profile (TS, TSS and TDS) for the collected samples 14

Figure 9. Volatile and Fixed solids profile in the collected samples 15

Figure 10. Chemical oxygen demand and Biochemical oxygen demand of the collected samples 16

Figure 11. Variation of ammonia, nitrates and total nitrogen in the collected samples 16

Figure 12. Variation of phosphate and chloride concentrations in the collected samples 17

Figure 13. Lutron SL 4030 used for measuring sound levels 19

Figure 14. Diagram showing places chosen for noise monitoring 20

ii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Standards prescribed by TNPCB for effluent disposal 4

Table 2. Reuse standards prescribed by CPHEEO for non-edible crops and toilet flushing 5

Table 3. Dimensions of the treatment units in STP 8

Table 4. List of parameters with their method of analysis 10

Table 5. Characteristics of sewage collected from different treatment units during Sampling 1. 12

Table 6. Sound levels of chosen locations for noise monitoring at EFM STP 20

iii
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1
1.1 Location

Elysium Flushing Meadows (EFM) is located in Vellanaipatti village that comes under Annur taluk,
Coimbatore district. It is located at a distance of 5.5 to 6 km from the Coimbatore international airport. It
spreads over a sprawling area of 15 Acres. There are in total 126 individual villas out of which 100 villas
are occupied with an average of 4 persons per household. The project was launched in 2012 and it was
completed in the year 2014. Fig. 1 shows the location of the study area.

Figure 1. Location map of Elysium Flushing Meadows Clubhouse

1.2 Study area

The sewage treatment plant (STP) is located inside the EFM at latitude of 12.847° and longitude of
79.700° as shown in Fig. 1. Operations of STP commenced from the year 2015 after obtaining consent to
operate from Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB). STP in EFM is an underground structure
covered by asbestos cement (AC) sheets on the top as shown in Fig. 2. Adjacent places of STP includes
two villas and a playground that are located at a distance of about 100 m from it. Apart from the places
mentioned, there is a stream which is running just behind the boundary of EFM. The wastewater reaching
the STP is collected through underdrains from all the villas in EFM. The effluent coming out after
treatment is used for the purpose of gardening. The operation and maintenance of the plant was given to
M/s Eco Green Technologies, Coimbatore from 30th April 2019. The agreement signed between the EFM
and M/s Eco Green Technologies is attached in Annexure I.

2
 Figure 2. View of the STP interior in EFM.
1.3 Standards for treated STP effluent for discharge / Land application

TNPCB has prescribed the standards (Source: National Green Tribunal order dated 30.4.2019 in Original
Application number 1069/2018) for the STPs for all modes of disposal for different class of cities. The
guidelines also suggest to reuse or recycle the treated wastewater to a maximum extent. The standards
were given based on the population of the considered region. The standards are provided for pH,
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), total suspended solids (TSS), total
nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP) and fecal coliforms (FC). The prescribed standards are provided in
Table 1. In the past, treated STP effluent samples were collected by TNPCB from STP in EFM.
Compliance of EFM STP samples done by TNPCB is attached in Annexure II.

3
Table 1. Standards prescribed by TNPCB for effluent disposal

Standards (Applicable to all mode of disposal)

Parameters Mega and
Deep Marine
Metropolitan Class I Cities Others
Outfall
Cities
pH 5.5 - 9.0 5.5 - 9.0 5.5 - 9.0 5.5 - 9.0
BOD 10 20 30 30
TSS 20 30 50 50
COD 50 100 150 150
TN 10 15 - -
TP 1.0 1.0 1.0 -
FC Desirable- 100 Desirable- 230 Desirable- 1000 Desirable- 1000
Permissible- 230 Permissible- 1000 Permissible- 10,000 Permissible- 10,000

Note:
(i). Mega-Metropolitan Cities have population more than 1 crore, Metropolitan Cities-
Population more than 10 Lakhs and Class-1 Population more than 1 Lakh.

(ii). All values are in mg/l except pH and Fecal Coliform (in MPN/100mL).
(iii). The study is classified under others category according to TNPCBs norms.

Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organization (CPHEEO) provides the
guidelines for operation and maintenance of the STP. It has also prescribed standards for the reuse of
treated effluent depending upon the purpose for which it is to be used. The standards were prescribed
for toilet flushing, fire protection, vehicle exterior washing, non-contact impoundments, landscaping,
horticulture and agriculture. Landscaping, horticulture and agriculture section is further sub-divided
into edible and non-edible crops respectively. Since EFM uses the treated water for gardening purpose
and has agreed to use part of its treated water for flushing, standards pertaining to non-edible crops
and toilet flushing given by CPHEEO are presented in Table 2.

4
Table 2. Reuse standards prescribed by CPHEEO for non-edible crops and toilet flushing

Parameter Non-edible gardening Flushing

standards Standards

Temperature Ambient Ambient

Color AA Colorless
Suspended solids 30 Nil
TDS 2100 2100
pH 6.5-8.3 6.5-8.3
BOD 20 10
COD 30 30
Minimum residual chlorine 1 1
Nitrate nitrogen as N 10 10
Dissolved phosphorous as P 1 5
FC 230 Nil

Note:
(i). All units are in mg/L except pH, Temperature (ᴼC) and FC (MPN/100 mL).
(ii). AA- as arising when other parameters are satisfied.
(iii). A tolerance of 5% is allowable when yearly average values are considered.

5
 CHAPTER 2

SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT

6
2.1 Sewage treatment plant

The STP has been designed to treat 125 KLD of sewage. The treatment system is designed to
reduce pollutants such as BOD, COD, TSS etc. The proposed scheme of treatment (Fig. 2) in the
STP consist of perforated screen, collection tank (flow equalization), aeration tank (secondary
biological treatment based on conventional activated sludge process with sludge recirculation).
Moreover, the STP was given with a provision of sludge drying beds, pressure sand filter (PSF),
activated carbon filter (ACF) and disinfection units. The dimensions of various units of the STP
are provided in Table 2.

Figure 3. Proposed treatment scheme of the STP at EFM.

The wastewater generated in the villas is collected through underdrains that reach the screening
unit. A single perforated screen was separating the floating substances from the raw sewage.
Subsequently, this wastewater is directed to flow into a collection sump by gravity. The screened
sewage in the collection tank is pumped into the aeration tank by two submersible pumps that has
a capacity of 3HP each and operates at a flow rate of 5.5 L/s. The pumped sewage enters the
aeration tank provided with surface aeration. The blower capacity used for aeration is around 200
m3/h at a pressure of about 0.5 bar. The water from the aeration tank enters the secondary clarifier
where the solid-liquid separation occurs. The clarified water enters the tertiary treatment unit

7
consisting of PSF and ASF. On the other hand, the biomass from the secondary clarifier is
recirculated back to the aeration tank (recirculation ratio = 2) with the help of recirculation pumps
with a capacity of 1 HP and at a flow rate of 2.9 L/s (2 nos.).
Table 3. Dimensions of the treatment units in STP

Sl. Length Breadth Height Volume

Description Type
No. (m) (m) (m) (m3)
1 Collection Tank Rectangular Basin 11.5 3.5 3.5 140.9
2 Aeration Tank Rectangular Basin 7.8 4 4.5 140.4
3 Filter Feed Tank Rectangular Basin 5.5 3 2.5 41.25
4 Treated Water Tank Rectangular Basin 4 2.5 2.5 25
Diameter Height Volume
(m) (m) (m3)
5 Filters (PSF &ACF) Cylindrical Basin 0.9 1.8 1.15
6 Secondary Clarifier Cylindrical Basin 3.5 3 28

Clarified water from the secondary clarifier enters the filter feed tank from which the water is
pumped to the PSF and ACF, respectively. There are two filter feed pumps, namely, FFP1 and
FFP 2 pumping filter feed outlet to PSF and ACF, respectively. The outlet water from ACF is
dosed with a proprietary disinfectant after it enters the effluent holding tank to ensure proper
disinfection. The water from the effluent holding tank is reused for gardening inside EFM
clubhouse. The color of inlet wastewater was dark-grey and observed to have a foul odor.
2.2 Sample collection

A preliminary site investigation was carried out for fixing the sampling points. Based on the
preliminary investigation, 8 sampling points were chosen. Sampling was performed on 28-8-2021.
The sampling points are shown in Fig. 4. The samples were collected in 1 L plastic sampling
containers. Samples from collection tank, aeration tank and effluent were taken in BOD bottles for
BOD determination (Fig. 5a). Apart from sample collection the amount of settleable solids in the
aeration tank is also measured by taking a well-mixed sample from the aeration tank (Fig. 5b).

8
 Figure 4. Diagram of the showing the sampling points in the STP of EFM

As soon as the samples were collected, the containers were labelled and transferred to an insulated
ice box as shown in Fig. 5c. The ice box was transported to the laboratory in Indian Institute of
Technology Madras and the sample containers were stored at 4 °C. Parameters like BOD, COD,
MPN were analyzed immediately. Alongside wastewater sample collection, noise monitoring was
also carried out at selective places near the STP.

Figure 5. Photographs showing (a) Sample collection (b) Settleable solids in aeration tank and
(c) Samples collected from STP.

9
A second sampling was carried out on 22-9-2021 to cross examine the reliability of results obtained
during the first sampling. In the second sampling, samples were collected from screening,
collection tank, aeration tank and treated effluent tank.
2.3 Characterization of wastewater

The collected samples were analyzed as per APHA standard methods. Table 3 shows the list of
parameters analyzed along with the methods adopted for carrying out the analysis.

Table 4. List of parameters with their method of analysis

Sl.
Parameter Code Methods
No
1 Colour Part 2120 Physical
2 Odour Part 2150 Physical
3 pH Part 4500- H+ pH meter
4 Electrical Conductivity (EC) Part 2510 B Conductivity meter
5 Dissolved oxygen (DO) DO meter
6 Turbidity Part 2130 B Turbidity meter
7 Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD3) Part 5210 Winkler’s method
8 Chemical oxygen demand (COD) Part 2520 Closed reflux
9 Total solids (TS) Part 2540 B Gravimetric
10 Total suspended solids (TSS) Part 2540 D Gravimetric
11 Total dissolved solids (TDS) Part 2540 C Gravimetric
12 Fixed suspended solids (FSS) Part 2540 E Gravimetric
13 Fixed dissolved solids (FDS) Part 2540 E Gravimetric
14 Total Fixed solids (TFS) Part 2540 E Gravimetric
15 Volatile suspended solids (VSS) Part 2540 E Gravimetric
16 Volatile dissolved solids (VDS) Part 2540 E Gravimetric
17 Total volatile solids (TVS) Part 2540 E Gravimetric
18 Sulphates Part 4500-SO4- Spectrophotometric
19 Nitrates Part 4500-NO3- Spectrophotometric
20 Phosphates Part 4500-PO43- Stannous chloride
21 Chlorides Part 4500-Cl- Argentometric Titrimetric
22 Sodium as Na+ Part 3500-Na+ Ion chromatography
23 Ammonia as NH3 Part 4500-NH4+ Ion Chromatography
24 Total Coliforms (TC) Part 9221 B Multiple tube
25 Fecal Coliforms (FC) Part 9221 B fermentation

10
 CHAPTER 3

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

11
3.1 Wastewater characteristics

The characteristics of wastewater samples collected at different treatment units of the STP in EFM
is presented in Table 5. The results of the second sampling are attached in Annexure III.
Table 5. Characteristics of sewage collected from different treatment units during Sampling 1.

Sl. Parameter S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8
No
1 pH 7.12 7.32 7.41 7.35 7.45 7.43 7.43 7.62
2 EC 446 718 735 776 775 778 758 827
3 Turbidity 53.6 262 267 266 44 42.4 49.6 21.9
4 TS 612 1068 1052 1008 748 732 764 740
5 TSS 296 349 348 192 68 68 90 40
6 TDS 316 600 604 648 584 536 556 600
7 COD 339 531 326.4 275.2 93.3 90 82 57.6
8 BOD 150 200 118 227.5 73.6 70.4 41.6 30
9 DO 0.82 0.14 0.91 - - - - 4.02
10 TN 29.5 48.0 51.6 49 52.7 51.0 51.8 52.1
11 Nitrates 1.1 0.6 2.5 2.6 2.7 3.8 2.2 1.9
12 Ammonium 12.5 14 14.2 14.3 14.5 14.2 14.5 11.9
13 Phosphates 3.6 11.6 11.4 11.0 31.5 31.8 33.1 40.8
14 Chlorides 95.6 109.9 119.6 115.0 103.1 109.9 115.3 143.6
15 Sulphates 12.7 52.2 51.1 46.6 38.6 41.5 43.9 46.0
16 Sodium 49 50.2 40.9 44.3 42.6 44.7 45.9 41.3
17 Potassium 7.2 6.9 6.3 7 6.4 5.9 6.4 5.9
18 Calcium 4.1 4.3 3.5 3.5 4.6 4.6 3.6 4.5
19 Magnesium 7.4 6.1 5.9 6.4 6.5 5.9 6.3 5.4
20 Residual Chlorine BDL BDL BDL BDL
21 TC >1600 >1600
22 FC >1600 >1600

* BDL- Below Detection Limit

* All values are in mg/L except pH, EC (μS/cm), Turbidity (NTU), FC and TC (MPN/100 mL)

12
3.2 Physical parameters

The sample was grey in color as visible from naked eye and odor was found to be offensive in the
samples (S1 to S5). From Table 5, it can be observed that the parameters of S1 are comparatively
lesser than that of S2. The reason might be that, the aeration provided in the collection tank
prevents the settling of suspended solids. The suspended solids might have contributed to the
increase in the parameters of S2.
The pH was observed to be neutral varying from 7.1 to 7.6 in the treatment systems. The pH
increased slightly (from 7.3 to 7.4) during biological treatment (Fig. 6). The conductivity was
almost stable throughout the treatment units except for S8. The increase might be due to leaching
of ions from the exhausted filter bed or due to chlorination. However, analysis of residual chlorine
did not show any detectable free chlorine in the system after treatment (Table 5). Also, the increase
in pH after S7 shows that chlorination has not been done effectively.

9.00 1000

8.00 750
EC (µS/cm)
pH

7.00 500

6.00 250

5.00 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Sample Sample

Figure 6. Variation of pH and EC in the collected samples

The turbidity and TSS profiles are shown in Fig. 7. It can be observed that TSS and Turbidity have
a similar profile. The TSS in the collection tank, aeration outlet and SST outlet are higher compared
to other samples. It can be seen that the filtration holding tank (S4) was able to remove some
suspended solids. This might be due to the settling of solids in the detention time provided.
Turbidity and TSS were removed effectively in the pressure sand filter (S5).

13
 300 400
250 350
Turbidity (NTU)
300

TSS (mg/L)
200 250
150 200
100 150
100
50 50
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Samples Samples

Figure 7. Variation of Turbidity and Total suspended solids in the collected samples

Total Solids (TS) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)

1200

1000
Solids (mg/L)

800

600

400

200

0
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8
Samples

Figure 8. Solids profile (TS, TSS and TDS) for the collected samples

The treatment system is effective in removing suspended solids. However, there is no net dissolved
solids (TDS) removal. The removal of suspended solids resulted in the removal of total solids from
1000 mg/L to 740 mg/L. The TDS profile also shows that there is a slight increase in TDS in
samples S8. The increase maybe due to either leaching of ions from the saturated filtration unit or
due to chlorination. The volatile and fixed solid profiles were analyzed for samples S1, S2 and S8.

14
 450 600
400
500
Volatile Solids (mg/L)

Fixed Solids (mg/L)

350
300 400
250
300
200
150 200
100
100
50
0 0
S1 S2 S8 S1 S2 S8
Samples Samples

VSS (mg/L) DVS (mg/L) TVS SFS DFS (mg/L) TFS

Figure 9. Volatile and Fixed solids profile in the collected samples

From Fig. 9 it can be inferred that the suspended solids constitute the major portion of volatile
solids in S1 and S2. The dissolved volatile solids decrease from 127.5 mg/L to 42.5 mg/L in sample
8 as a result of secondary and tertiary treatment units. In contrast to dissolved solids, fixed solids
profile is showing an increasing trend from the initial value of 408 mg/L in S1 to 561.5 mg/L in
S8, respectively. The reason for this increase is same as that of EC and TDS.
3.3. Chemical Parameters

Variation of bulk organic parameters, cations and anions of the collected samples are discussed in
this section. Fig. 10 shows the variation of COD and BOD of the samples collected from different
treatment units of STP. The BOD/COD ratio is 0.45 which suggests that the wastewater is suitable
for biological treatment. The values of both BOD and COD are getting reduced after the secondary
treatment making the ratio 0.36. This shows us that the carbonaceous organic matter is getting
removed in the secondary treatment. However, there is an increase in this ratio to 0.82 after
secondary clarifier. This may be due to unsettled microbes in the clarified effluent. These unsettled
suspended organic matters are removed in the filter feed tank, PSF and ACF that results in the
reduction of the BOD and COD (ratio of 0.52) in the final effluent sample (S8).

15
 COD (mg/L) BOD (mg/L) BOD/COD
500 1
450 0.9

Oxygen Demand (mg/L)

400 0.8
350 0.7

BOD/COD
300 0.6
250 0.5
200 0.4
150 0.3
100 0.2
50 0.1
0 0
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8
Samples
Figure 10. Chemical oxygen demand and Biochemical oxygen demand of the collected samples

Fig. 11 shows the concentration of ammonium, nitrate and total nitrogen concentration of the
collected samples. It can be inferred that the ammonium concentration is around 13 mg/L whereas
nitrate concentration is 0.6 mg/L for the sample in the collection tank. After secondary treatment
most of the ammonium ions in the system should be converted into nitrates. However, in this case
the nitrification process is minimal as the nitrate and the ammonium concentrations are almost
constant in all the samples collected in different treatment units.

Ammonium Nitrates (mg/L) Total Nitrogen

16 60

14
50
Ion Concentration (mg/L)

12
Total Nitrogen (mg/L)

40
10

8 30

6
20
4
10
2

0 0
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8
Samples

Figure 11. Variation of ammonia, nitrates and total nitrogen in the collected samples
16
Moreover, it can also be observed that the total nitrogen value is constant throughout the entire
treatment scheme. However, there is a reduction in ammonia concentration in S8 from 14.5 mg/L
to 12 mg/L owing to chlorination. Therefore, the chlorine added is fully utilized for ammonia
oxidation rather than disinfection.
Fig. 12 shows the variation of phosphate and chloride ion concentrations in the collected samples.
Phosphate concentration is almost similar for S2, S3 and S4. However, the concentration increased
to ~30 mg/L after PSF. It is envisaged that the increase might be due to the leaching of phosphates
from the saturated bed of the filter. Chloride ion concentration varied less significantly till S7 and
was around 115 mg/L. The concentration of chlorides increased to 144 mg/L in S8 owing to the
chlorination process. However, the absence of residual chlorine (Tables 5) and the presence of
coliforms in the final effluent infers that the chlorine dosage is not sufficient to carry out complete
disinfection.

Phosphates Chlorides
Ion concentration (mg/L)

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8
Samples

Figure 12. Variation of phosphate and chloride concentrations in the collected samples

17
 CHAPTER 4

NOISE MONITORING

18
4.1 Instrument used for noise monitoring

The sound levels were monitored using a pocket level sound meter Lutron SL -4030 which has an
accuracy of 0.1 dB and can measure up to a maximum value of 130 db. There are two weighting
scales namely “A” and “C” in the instrument. Typically, A weighting is used for most of the
measurements and B scale weighting is used for the sound measurements from machineries. “A”
scale weighting was used for the noise monitoring carried out in this study. Fig. 13 shows the noise
meter which was used in this study.

Figure 13. Lutron SL 4030 used for measuring sound levels

4.2 Methodology adopted for noise monitoring

The noise monitoring is carried out by taking sound levels in and around the treatment plant at
specific locations and comparing it with the standard values. The places which were closer to the
STP were chosen for monitoring considering the fact that these places will be receiving the
maximum sound from the STP. Fig. 14 shows the locations chosen for noise monitoring in and
around STP in EFM.

19
 Places C sen r
N ise M nit ring

Figure 14. Diagram showing places chosen for noise monitoring

Three different scenarios were considered for noise monitoring and they are as follows:
• Entire plant shutdown (All blowers and pumps are turned off)
• All pumps in operation and blower switched off
• All pumps are switched on and also the blower in operation.
In all the above-mentioned cases, sound values were taken at different locations (Fig. 14). The
locations were chosen in such a way that they are very closer to STP since these places will be
receiving the maximum sound from the STP. The sound values at chosen locations and comparison
with standards prescribed by TNPCB (Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change
notification S.O 123 (E) dated 14.2.200) are given in Table 6.
Table 6. Sound levels of chosen locations for noise monitoring at EFM STP

Scenarios Noise standards

Noise level
Sl. No. considered for Measurement location for residential
(dB)
monitoring area (dB)
1 Full-shut down of Panel room of STP (A) 60-61 -
the plant STP Entrance (B) 60-61 -
End of Ground (C) 45-46 55
Villa 2 (D) 48 55
Villa 1 (E) 47 55

20
 T-Junction in housing area 45 55
near STP (F)
2 All pumps in Panel room of STP (A) 89-91 -
operation but STP Entrance (B) 56 -
blowers OFF End of Ground (C) - 55
Villa 2 (D) 48 55
Villa 1 (E) 49.1 55
T-Junction in housing area 49-51 55
near STP (F)
3 All pumps in Panel room of STP (A) 90-91 -
operation and STP Entrance (B) 75-76 -
blower are ON End of Ground (C) 59-60 55
Villa 2 (D) 53 55
Villa 1 (E) 53 55
T-Junction in housing area 51.5 55
near STP (F)

From Table 6, it can be inferred that the noise levels at the different locations inside the gated
community is well within the limits prescribed by TNPCB. Although the sound levels are within
the limits in the residential points, the sound values inside the plant were quite high. However, it
can be reduced by the use of sound adsorbers or barriers inside the plant. In order to reduce the
sound levels blowers with less rotations per minute (rpm) can be used instead of the one with
higher rpm. If the above said measure is not giving significant reduction in sound levels, blowers
can be replaced with submersible ejectors.

21
 CHAPTER 5

MAJOR OBSERVATIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

22
5.1 Major Observations

A team from IIT Madras visited the STP of Elysium Flushing Meadows and collected the samples
from different units of STP. The following major observations were found out based on field visit
and detailed analysis of the STP samples.

➢ The size of various treatment units adopted in the STP are adequate to treat the wastewater
generated in Elysium Flushing Meadows. Therefore, no change in dimensions/sizing of the
unit are required for the existing treatment units.
➢ The pH, BOD, COD and TSS values of the treated wastewater (i.e., effluent from the STP)
is below the disposal standards prescribed by TNPCB.
➢ The Fecal Coliforms (FC) in the treated wastewater was >1600 MPN/100 mL, which is
due to insufficient hypochlorite dosage. However, the level of FC is lesser than permissible
value of 10,000 MPN/100 mL.
➢ The treatment units were not effective in achieving the nitrification process and due to
which ammonia concentration is almost similar in the inlet and outlet wastewater.
➢ Phosphate concentration in the treated water is higher than the inlet concentration, which
might be because of the leaching of ions from PSF and ACF.
➢ There were no signs of the usage of sludge drying beds that has to be used for drying the
screenings and excessive sludge from ASP.
➢ The measured noise levels at different residential locations closer to the STP are well
within the limits prescribed by TNPCB.

5.2 Recommendations

Based on the overall findings, the following recommendations are given for the improvement of
the treated water quality and the overall performance of the STP:

➢ The conductivity as well as the TDS of the wastewater were increasing after the filtration
process, which may be due to the leaching of ions from the PSF and ACF. Therefore, (a)
PSF must be maintained properly to sustain the quality of the filtrate, which can be done
by making frequent and appropriate backwashing of the filter bed, and (b) ACF should be
cleaned chemically or refilled with new adsorbent to maintain the quality of the filtered
water.

23
 ➢ Suitable dosage of hypochlorite must be given to the effluent after ACF to maintain the
minimum residual chlorine dosage of 1 ppm. A chlorine contact time of 20 to 30 min must
be ensured to reduce the level of FC in the STP effluent.
➢ Although the treated wastewater is meeting majority of the disposal standards, the detailed
solids analysis (TSS, TDS, TFS and TVS) along with other parameters revealed that the
present treatment plant failed to achieve the CPHEEO standard for gardening. Therefore,
along with already suggested measures, appropriate units such as ultrafiltration (UF)
should be added in the tail end of the STP to improve the quality of the treated wastewater.
➢ Electromagnetic flow meter should be installed at the inlet and the outlet of the STP.
Moreover, a dedicated book of records for the STP should be maintained.
➢ Units such as secondary settler, filtration holding tank and effluent tank should be provided
with platforms for improving the ease of access for monitoring purpose.
➢ The scrap/unwanted materails stored in the storage room should be cleared from the
instrumentation/panel room, and suitable fire-fighting devices should be equipped within
the STP.

5.3 Conclusions

The physical dimensions of the various treatment units existing at present in the STP are adequate
to treat the wastewater generated in Elysium Flushing Meadows. The BOD/COD ratio of the
raw/influent wastewater indicates the suitability of the biological process-based treatment scheme
adopted in the STP of EFM. Moreover, the effluent coming out of the STP is meeting most of the
standards prescribed by TNPCB except FC and total phosphorous. The standards can be met if the
recommendations pertaining to chlorination, ACF and PSF are practiced systematically in
everyday STP operation. Moreover, the measured noise levels at different residential locations
closer to the STP are well within the limits prescribed by TNPCB.

24
ANNEXURES

25
 Annexure I
Agreement signed between EFM and M/s Eco Green Technologies for the operation and
maintenance of STP

26
27
 Annexure II
TNPCB analysis reports on EFM STP samples in the years 2020 and 2021

28
29
 Annexure III

Table A1. Characteristics of samples collected during second sampling

S. No Parameter Before screening After screening Aeration tank Effluent

1. pH 6.52 6.49 6.73 7.65

2. EC 586 602 782 1121
3. Turbidity 67 190 598 7.8
4. TS 486 954 4880 1143
5. TSS 89 335 2870 26
6. VSS 58 321 1830 18
7. TDS 477 533 2035 1117
8. DVS 167 133 408 87
9. DFS 310 400 1627 1031
10. TVS 224 454 2239 97
11. SFS 5.3 93 870 8
12. TFS 262 500 2641 1047
13. SVS 83 242 2000 18
13. COD 214 442 3024 24
14. BOD 93 226 126.3 29.7
16. TN 32.6 32.6 91.4 27.5
17. Nitrates 1.03 1.01 2.70 4.52
18. Ammonium 23.8 36.3 81.6 29.1
19. Phosphates 13.8 14.7 126.7 7.13
2+
20. Ca 16 32 22.4 128
2+
21. Mg 37.4 24 52.8 32.64
22. Residual Chlorine - - - BDL
23. TC 26x106 - - 7000
4
24. FC 26x10 - - 900

Note: All units are in mg/L except pH, EC (µs/cm), TC (MPN/100 mL) and FC (MPN/100 mL)

30
 Annexure IV

Pictures taken during site visit and sample collection

31
32